Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alice H. Eagly
Northwestern University
Abigail A. Mitchell
Tiina Ristikari
University of Tampere
This meta-analysis examined the extent to which stereotypes of leaders are culturally masculine. The
primary studies fit into 1 of 3 paradigms: (a) In Scheins (1973) think managerthink male paradigm, 40
studies with 51 effect sizes compared the similarity of male and leader stereotypes and the similarity of
female and leader stereotypes; (b) in Powell and Butterfields (1979) agency communion paradigm, 22
studies with 47 effect sizes compared stereotypes of leaders agency and communion; and (c) in Shinars
(1975) masculinityfemininity paradigm, 7 studies with 101 effect sizes represented stereotypes of
leadership-related occupations on a single masculinityfemininity dimension. Analyses implemented
appropriate random and mixed effects models. All 3 paradigms demonstrated overall masculinity of
leader stereotypes: (a) In the think managerthink male paradigm, intraclass correlation ! .25 for
the womenleaders similarity and intraclass correlation ! .62 for the menleaders similarity; (b) in the
agency communion paradigm, g ! 1.55, indicating greater agency than communion; and (c) in the
masculinityfemininity paradigm, g ! 0.92, indicating greater masculinity than the androgynous scale
midpoint. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses indicated that this masculine construal of leadership
has decreased over time and was greater for male than female research participants. In addition,
stereotypes portrayed leaders as less masculine in educational organizations than in other domains and
in moderate- than in high-status leader roles. This article considers the relation of these findings to Eagly
and Karaus (2002) role congruity theory, which proposed contextual influences on the incongruity
between stereotypes of women and leaders. The implications for prejudice against women leaders are
also considered.
Keywords: leadership, management, gender stereotypes, gender roles, meta-analysis
1
In this article, we use the terms leader and manager interchangeably.
Although a distinction between leadership and management is useful in
some contexts (e.g., Bennis, 1989), the research that we review does not
allow leader and managerial roles or functions to be separated. Also, we
use the terms sex and sexes to denote the grouping of people into female
and male categories. The term gender refers to the meanings that societies
and individuals ascribe to these female and male categories. We do not
intend to use these terms to give priority to any class of causes that may
underlie sex and gender effects (see Wood & Eagly, 2010).
616
617
618
dates of publication, which extend back to 1973, allow our metaanalysis to clarify whether the cultural representation of leadership
has changed. A shift in an androgynous direction would ease
womens role incongruity problem in relation to leader roles.
Why might role incongruity have lessened? Organizational experts have often argued that definitions of good managerial practices have changed in response to features of the contemporary
organizational environment, such as fast social and technological
change and unprecedented complexity of organizations missions
and contexts (e.g., Avolio, 1999; Kanter, 1997; Lipman-Blumen,
2000). According to such analyses, these changed conditions compromise the efficacy of top-down command-and-control leadership
and foster democratic relationships, participatory decision-making,
delegation, and team-based leadership skills (e.g., Gergen, 2005;
Kanter, 1997; Lipman-Blumen, 2000; McCauley, 2004). Such
descriptions are manifestly less masculine than many traditional
models of good leadership.
Another possibility is that the increase of women leaders might
produce less masculine and more androgynous beliefs about leadership. Evidence of the increase of women leaders abounds, including growth over time in womens emergence as leaders in field
and laboratory studies of leader emergence in initially leaderless
groups (Eagly & Karau, 1991). In the United States, women now
constitute 25% of chief executives when all organizations are
considered and 43% of all employees in management, business,
and financial operations occupations (vs. 31% in 1983; U.S. Department of Labor, 2007, 2010b). Women have also become more
numerous in highly visible political leader roles, now constituting
17% of the U.S. Congress (vs. 2% in 1950; Center for American
Women and Politics, 2011) and 12% of governors (vs. 0% in 1950;
Center for American Women and Politics, 2010). Women have
increased in leadership roles in many other nations as well (see
European Commission, 2010; Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2010).
Evidence that the mere presence of more women leaders can
change perceptions of leader roles emerged in research on womens occupancy of the chief village councilor role in West Bengal
(Beaman, Chattopadhyay, Duflo, Pande, & Topalova, 2009). People in the villages that were mandated (vs. not mandated) by the
government to elect a woman for this leader role not only perceived their current women leaders and women leaders in general
as more effective but also reduced their implicit bias toward
associating men with leadership and elected more women to leadership positions in the next election. As additional evidence that
the presence of women leaders changes perceptions of leadership,
female college students with more women professors as role
models reduced their implicit associations of leadership qualities
with men and communal qualities with women (Dasgupta &
Asgari, 2004). Empirical research thus has demonstrated that an
increase in the number of women leaders can produce a more
androgynous concept of leadership and thereby reduce bias toward
current and potential women leaders.
What about change in gender stereotypes? If gender stereotypes
reflect the differing placements of men and women into social
roles (Wood & Eagly, 2010), womens increase in labor force
participation (to 61% vs. 33% in 1950; U.S. Department of Labor,
2010a) and in leader roles might predict change in the female
stereotype. However, women still perform the majority of domestic work (e.g., Bianchi, Robinson, & Milkie, 2006), and the majority of employed women have remained concentrated in tradi-
619
tional occupations. The six most common in the United States are
secretary and administrative assistant; registered nurse; elementary
and middle school teacher; cashier; retail salespersons; and nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides (U.S. Department of Labor,
2011). Therefore, it is not surprising that the partial reviews of
gender stereotyping conducted so far have not yielded evidence of
decreased stereotyping over time (e.g., Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo,
& Lueptow, 2001). Nonetheless, the masculinity of leader roles
could be changing without much change in stereotypes about men
and women in general.
In sum, leader stereotypes may have become less masculine
over time. If the change in leader stereotypes is related to increases
of women in leadership roles, then the number of women leaders
should be related to the masculinity of leadership. Because stereotype change presumably reflects the updating of impressions based
on new observations (e.g., Weber & Crocker, 1983), leader stereotypes at any one time point should correspond best to contemporaneous observations of women in leader roles.
Method
Sample of Studies and Criteria for Inclusion and
Exclusion
Three paradigms of research. The search located studies
that fit into the three different paradigms, whose defining characteristics are the following:
1. In the Schein (1973) think managerthink male paradigm,
participants rated a leader category, men (typically men in general), or women (typically women in general) on various traits
in a between-subjects design (with only two studies having a
within-subjects design). In most of these studies, the ratings were
completed using the Schein Descriptive Index, which consists of
620
calculate an effect size, and when contacted, the authors could not
supply the needed information (e.g., Couch & Sigler, 2001; Gerstner & Day, 1994).
Studies from any participant population or nation were included
if they fit the above criteria. When documents included data from
different nations or different participant samples within a nation,
they were treated as separate studies if the results were reported
separately. Some documents included data for more than one type
of leader category (e.g., company president, head librarian). If
separate groups of participants rated each category, the leader
categories were treated as separate studies. If the same participants
rated more than one leader category, these effect sizes were averaged prior to calculating study-level mean effect sizes but retained
as separate effect sizes for moderator analyses. In two documents
in the think managerthink male paradigm (Dodge et al., 1995;
Karau, 2005), separate groups of participants rated different types
of leaders. These ratings were correlated with the same ratings of
women and men, provided by two other groups of participants. In
our analyses, we treated these semi-independent leader conditions
as separate studies.
Some data qualified in more than one paradigm. For example,
we extracted only the leader condition of think managerthink
male studies for use in the agency communion paradigm if the
report contained item-level data that allowed us to separate agentic
and communal items into subscales (i.e., van Engen, 2006). Also,
parts of the same study that were published separately sometimes
qualified for different paradigms. For example, some authors presented intraclass correlation coefficients in one publication but
grouped the data into agentic and communal scales in another
(Fullagar, Sverke, Sverke, Sumer, & Slick, 2003; Sumer, 2006) or
presented the intraclass correlation coefficients in one publication
but the mean for a specific masculinefeminine bipolar scale in
another (Koch, Luft, & Kruse, 2005; Luft, 2003).
Search for studies.
Computer-based information searches
were conducted in the following databases: ABI/INFORM, Academic Press/Ideal, Business Source Elite, Proquest Digital Dissertations, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Emerald Full Text, PAIS International, Proquest Business Databases,
PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, WilsonWeb, and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts.
In these searches, the keywords leader! (-s, -ship), manager!
(-s, -ial), educator, executive, candidate, public office, political
office, principal, or occupation were combined with (a) stereotyp!
(-e, -es, -ical), traits, characterization, attribute inventory, image,
2
621
Y
Y
1
1
1
Byler (2000)
Cohen-Kaner (1992)
Karau (2005)
Kent (1984)
Y
Y
Y
Sep.
by sexb
Samplea
Report
1
1
1
Pub.
sourcec
100
100
100
50
50
50
50
50
33
67
% male
authors
2
2
1
Stereotype
measured
28
42
US
US
31
EG
SE
42
42
US
US
35
30
SE
US
32
TR
GB
32
42
US
PT
42
42
36
37
40
37
44
35
46
30
% female
mgr.
US
US
US/CA
US/CA
US
US
US
US
US
ZA
Natione
47
21
21
21
22
22
41
21
21
42
21
20
47
30
32
33
31
36
44
42
20
32
M age
SSA
SMM
SMM
SMM
CEO
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SUM
SMM
1
1
1
Leader
statusg
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
EAD
SMM
SMO
SMM
Leader
rolef
Table 1
All Included Studies (k ! 51) With Moderator Values and Effect Sizes for the Think ManagerThink Male Paradigm
391
404
508
501
407
395
83
85
119
119
53
43
48
48
48
48
76
74
178
169
197
203
199
199
160
160
536
536
182
182
78
78
112
104
113
105
217
220
371
357
47
47
61
61
240
247
n
69
69
82
82
72
69
82
78
39
39
45
48
59
59
59
59
39
31
60
57
30
33
46
46
50
50
58
58
27
27
100
100
59
63
58
63
58
59
75
73
55
57
51
56
47
52
% male
part.
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
51
22
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
42
42
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
Item n
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
M
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
Leader
sim.h
.46
.70
".03
.39
.15
.68
.45
.23
.26
.53
.58
.66
.15
.50
.02
.59
.54
.56
.67
.56
.28
.43
".01
.40
.11
.46
.21
.58
.15
.68
".24
.54
.01
.39
.19
.93
.31
.40
".24
.43
.44
.33
.28
.39
.58
.59
ICCi
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.25
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Variance
622
KOENIG, EAGLY, MITCHELL, AND RISTIKARI
Y
Y
Marmenout (2008)
Orser (1994)j
Schein (1973)
Schein (1975)
Sczesny (2003a)
Luft (2003)
Sep.
by sexb
Samplea
Report
Table 1 (continued)
Pub.
sourcec
50
33
50
67
25
66
33
100
33
% male
authors
Stereotype
measured
27
12
CN
DE
JP
35
19
DE
US
32
32
GB
GB
32
17
18
38
37
GB
US
US
NZ
AU
40
41
CA
US
41
40
25
26
22
31
27
46
% female
mgr.
CA
US/CA
DK
NL
US
SA
DE
US
Natione
24
21
21
21
24
21
21
21
44
43
21
27
22
29
21
21
21
43
39
44
21
28
21
M age
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
SMM
MSC
MSC
SMM
SM
SM
SMM
MSC
SM
SM
SMM
CEO
Leader
rolef
Leader
statusg
41
42
202
202
144
171
89
83
85
96
119
113
613
605
198
198
198
198
204
213
35
36
91
75
212
212
193
212
113
115
152
152
101
101
101
101
297
297
152
152
195
210
186
183
73
73
n
46
46
47
47
40
37
60
57
48
45
85
82
48
48
0
0
50
50
55
54
38
51
22
25
48
48
100
100
0
0
54
54
48
48
48
48
63
63
64
64
66
64
56
53
58
58
% male
part.
92
92
25
25
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
24
24
92
92
92
92
40
40
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
40
40
Item n
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
Leader
sim.h
Variance
.18
0.01
.80
0.01
".27
0.04
.68
0.04
.18
0.01
.61
0.01
.15
0.01
.64
0.01
.24
0.01
.58
0.01
.44
0.01
.72
0.01
.44
0.05
.81
0.05
.31
0.01
.46
0.01
.18
0.01
.49
0.01
.15
0.03
.76
0.03
.36
0.01
.72
0.01
.46
0.01
.79
0.01
.43
0.01
.71
0.01
.06
0.01
.62
0.01
.30
0.01
.54
0.01
.19
0.01
.52
0.01
.17
0.01
.64
0.01
.17
0.01
.64
0.01
.05
0.01
.71
0.01
.23
0.01
.64
0.01
".06
0.01
.60
0.01
.10
0.01
.91
0.01
.65
0.03
.76
0.03
(table continues)
ICCi
623
624
1
SMM
19
25
HK
2
50
Y
1
Yim & Bond (2002)
1
SMM
22
26
NL
1
0
2
1
van Engen (2006)
1
SM
38
27
US
1
0
2
Y
1
Sylvan (1983)
Note. In each sample, separate groups of participants rated a leader category, women, or men on gender-stereotypical traits. The effect sizes are the intraclass correlations between the mean ratings
of managers (or leaders) and (a) the mean ratings of men or (b) the mean ratings of women across all the traits. Sep. ! separated; pub. ! publication; mgr. ! managers; part. ! participants; sim. !
similarity; ICC ! intraclass correlation coefficient.
a
The number of different samples (e.g., from different populations or countries) reported within the article. b Separated samples by sex: N ! no; Y ! yes; M ! sample was all male; F ! sample
was all female. c Publication source: 1 ! published; 2 ! unpublished. d 1 ! Schein Descriptive Index; 2 ! other. e AU ! Australia; CA ! Canada; CN ! China; DK ! Denmark; EG ! Egypt;
DE ! Germany; GB ! Great Britain; HK ! Hong Kong; JP ! Japan; NL ! Netherlands; NZ ! New Zealand; PT ! Portugal; SA ! Saudi Arabia; ZA ! South Africa; SE ! Sweden; TR ! Turkey;
US ! United States; X ! included data from several countries. f EAD ! effective athletic directors; L ! leadership; M ! managers; MSC ! managers of successful companies; CEO ! successful
CEOs; SM ! successful managers; SMM ! successful middle managers; SMO ! successful military officers; SSA ! successful school administrators; SUM ! successful upper level managers. g 1 !
moderate; 2 ! high. h M ! menleaders similarity; W ! womenleaders similarity. i Effect size (ICC) computed using a one-way single rater random effects model, related the mean ratings of
the leader role to the ratings of men or women. These correlations represent the similarity of stereotypes of men or women to stereotypes of leaders; higher correlations indicate a greater
similarity. j The sample with 50% male participants was composed of business students, and the sample with 0% male participants was composed of nonbusiness students. k The sample with 54%
male participants was from North Great Britain, and the sample with 48% male participants was from South Great Britain.
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
.87
.87
.11
.48
.29
.38
.44
.72
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
40
40
92
92
92
92
32
32
Y
Sczesny (2003b)
DE
27
45
60
64
60
63
70
31
142
142
58
70
53
54
23
0
49
49
Leader
sim.h
Report
Table 1 (continued)
Samplea
Sep.
by sexb
Pub.
sourcec
% male
authors
Stereotype
measured
Natione
% female
mgr.
M age
Leader
rolef
Leader
statusg
% male
part.
Item n
ICCi
Variance
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Samplea
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Report/leader role
Sep. by
sexb
Pub.
sourcec
10
67
100
100
100
100
100
50
100
50
100
100
% male
authors
Stereotype
measured
US
JP
US
US
US
US
US
US
SE
US
US
US
US
US
Natione
35
45
35
33
28
22
37
27
37
22
37
33
25
% female
mgr.
Table 2
All Included Studies (k ! 48) With Moderator Values and Effect Sizes for the AgencyCommunion Paradigm
21
21
21
32
21
20
27
20
20
20
27
41
21
43
37
28
22
20
21
21
20
M age
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
Leader
domainf
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
Leader
statusg
14
14
14
88
86
123
206
199
126
50
44
627
110
574
87
79
87
60
59
41
51
154
259
133
149
153
139
110
128
54
54
54
77
23
65
57
43
60
46
46
62
82
70
47
44
48
50
50
63
0
69
58
54
50
51
56
53
59
% male
part.
0.03
0.02
0.13
0.04
0.15
0.23
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.20
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
Variance
2.44
0.25
2.66
0.27
2.31
0.24
(table continues)
"1.18
0.27
1.49
1.08
2.56
1.97
1.53
0.81
2.47
2.35
1.98
1.46
1.63
0.65
0.72
1.79
1.25
2.65
2.14
1.41
1.22
0.48
0.20
0.75
1.00
0.61
0.79
2.36
gh
625
Y
Y
Y
Y
1
1
1
1
Sep. by
sexb
Samplea
Pub.
sourcec
% male
authors
Stereotype
measured
US
NL
GB
LU
NL
TR
NL
DE
Natione
35
27
33
26
26
19
% female
mgr.
50
22
43
43
22
21
36
23
45
M age
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
Leader
domainf
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
Leader
statusg
54
54
54
54
54
139
363
66
40
369
3229
109
54
14
14
14
14
14
14
43
43
43
43
43
52
33
50
28
55
67
64
100
54
54
54
54
54
54
% male
part.
1.00
0.76
0.28
0.34
1.20
0.71
1.19
1.71
1.02
1.00
1.29
1.07
3.11
1.84
1.40
1.01
2.40
1.59
2.55
1.98
gh
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.001
0.25
0.23
0.18
0.16
0.25
0.19
0.26
0.21
Variance
Note. In each sample, participants rated a leader role on separate masculine (i.e., agentic) and feminine (i.e., communal) gender stereotyping scales. Comparison of participants mean ratings on the
two scales determined whether the stereotype of leaders was more masculine than feminine. The effect size for the average of the roles is presented for studies using a within-subjects design. Sep. !
separated; pub. ! publication; mgr. ! managers; part. ! participants.
a
The number of different samples (e.g., from different populations or countries) reported within the article. Some studies with multiple samples reported participant characteristics across all
samples. b Separated samples by sex: N ! no; Y ! yes. c Publication source: 1 ! published; 2 ! unpublished. d 1 ! Bem Sex Role Inventory; 2 ! other. e DE ! Germany; GB ! Great Britain;
JP ! Japan; LU ! Luxembourg; NL ! Netherlands; SE ! Sweden; TR ! Turkey; US ! United States. f 1 ! educational; 2 ! political; 3 ! managerial. g 1 ! moderate; 2 ! high. h Effect
size (g) computed by subtracting the mean rating on the feminine scale from the mean rating on the masculine scale and dividing by the pooled standard deviation, adjusted for small sample bias. If
only frequencies or percentages in a 2 % 2 table created by splitting the scales at the medians were reported, agency and communion were treated as dichotomous, and g was estimated from dCox. Larger
gs indicate a more masculine concept of leadership.
President
School board member
State representative
State senator
U.S. representative
U.S. senator
Rustemeyer & Thrien (1989)
Good manager
Good manager
Stoker (2007)
Ideal manager
Sumer (2006)
Successful middle manager
van Engen (2006)
Successful middle manager
Vinnicombe & Cames (1998)
Successful manager at their
bank
Vinnicombe & Singh (2002)
Successful managers who
reached the top team
Willemsen (2002)
Successful manager at their
bank
Williams (1989)
Academic dean of students
Assistant principal
Elementary school principal
School superintendent
Secondary school principal
Average of roles
Report/leader role
Table 2 (continued)
626
KOENIG, EAGLY, MITCHELL, AND RISTIKARI
Samplea
1
Report/leader role
Sep. by
sexb
33
% male
authors
DE
US
US
Nationc
27
44
37
% female
mgr.
28
21
21
M age
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
1
2
2
6
5
1
2
2
6
4
2
2
3
6
2
4
2
2
2
1
3
1
5
Leader
domaind
Table 3
All Included Studies (k ! 101) With Moderator Values and Effect Sizes for the MasculinityFemininity Paradigm
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
Leader
statuse
202
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
139
138
140
141
141
140
141
141
141
141
139
141
141
141
140
141
139
140
141
140
140
141
141
140
139
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
50
49
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
51
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
% male part.
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
Variance
0.63
0.005
(table continues)
0.84
0.67
"0.16
1.46
0.76
"0.31
0.20
0.27
1.77
0.84
0.45
0.38
0.60
2.44
1.22
0.61
0.88
1.11
1.64
1.46
"1.66
0.87
0.72
0.85
1.40
0.45
0.26
1.35
1.10
0.30
1.40
0.06
0.60
1.35
0.92
0.01
1.44
1.51
0.89
gf
627
Boat captain
Company president
Dean/educational administrator
Farm manager
Federal judge
Head librarian
Managing editor
Mayor
Motel manager
Orchestra conductor
Park manager
Personnel director
Politician
Public relations director
Sales manager
Sales president
School principal
Supreme Court justice
Sep. by
sexb
Samplea
Report/leader role
Table 3 (continued)
20
100
% male
authors
32
ES
33
% female
mgr.
FR
US
Nationc
21
21
26
M age
6
2
1
6
5
1
2
4
2
3
6
2
4
2
2
2
1
5
6
2
1
6
5
1
2
4
2
3
6
2
4
2
2
2
1
5
3
1
6
2
2
Leader
domaind
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Leader
statuse
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
234
29
34
29
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
52
50
52
% male part.
2.03
0.75
0.74
1.25
0.59
"0.09
0.74
0.61
0.68
1.30
0.78
0.70
0.62
0.07
0.51
0.45
0.40
0.88
2.35
0.98
0.92
1.97
0.53
"1.03
0.52
0.78
0.80
1.22
0.93
0.49
1.15
0.28
0.30
0.72
0.07
0.60
0.53
0.87
0.75
1.52
0.48
0.58
0.86
gf
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.036
0.030
0.035
0.033
Variance
628
KOENIG, EAGLY, MITCHELL, AND RISTIKARI
Samplea
Sep. by
sexb
% male
authors
US
Nationc
18
% female
mgr.
21
M age
6
2
1
6
5
1
2
4
2
3
6
2
4
2
2
2
1
3
1
5
3
1
Leader
domaind
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
Leader
statuse
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
126
126
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
41
41
% male part.
3.91
9.06
0.99
2.09
1.76
"1.59
0.68
1.73
1.08
2.73
3.03
0.50
0.96
0.68
1.13
1.62
0.67
1.09
3.94
7.08
2.16
0.32
0.57
0.70
gf
0.009
0.011
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
Variance
Note. In each sample, participants rated leader roles on a single bipolar masculinityfemininity scale. Comparison of these ratings to the midpoint of the scale determined whether the stereotype of
leaders was masculine or feminine. The effect size for the average of the roles is presented for studies using a within-subjects design. All studies were published and used a 17 masculinefeminine
rating scale. Sep. ! separated; mgr. ! managers; part. ! participants.
a
The number of different samples (e.g., from different populations or countries) reported within the article. b Separated samples by sex: N ! no; Y ! yes. c FR ! France; DE ! Germany; ES !
Spain; US ! United States. d 1 ! education; 2 ! business; 3 ! arts; 4 ! political; 5 ! judicial; 6 ! other. e 1 ! moderate; 2 ! high. f Effect size (g) computed by subtracting the midpoint of
the scale from the leader rating, divided by the standard deviation and corrected for small sample bias.
Theatrical director
University president
Average of roles
Shinar (1975)
Boat captain
Company president
Dean/educational administrator
Farm manager
Federal judge
Head librarian
Managing editor
Mayor
Motel manager
Orchestra conductor
Park manager
Personnel director
Politician
Public relations director
Sales manager
Sales president
School principal
Theatrical director
University president
U.S. Supreme Court justice
Average of roles
Report/leader role
Table 3 (continued)
629
630
ratings on the two scales: (M1 " M2)/sp. The effect sizes were
converted to g with the correction for small sample bias: 1" [3/
(4N " 9)] (Borenstein et al., 2009). Some authors split their sample at
the median on both scales and reported the frequencies or percentages
in each quadrant of the resulting 2 % 2 table. If only this report was
available, agency and communion were treated as dichotomous, and
g was estimated from dCox, which is a logistic transformation of the
odds-ratio (Sanchez-Meca, Marn-Martnez, & Chancon-Moscoso,
2003, Formula 18). The within-study weighting term was the conventional inverse variance for standardized comparisons of means
(Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 72) or dCox (Sanchez-Meca et al., 2003,
Formula 19), with the random-effects models also incorporating the
between-studies variances in the study weight.
In the masculinityfemininity paradigm, authors reported means
and standard deviations on a 7-point masculinityfemininity scale,
which yielded a d as a comparison with the scales midpoint [(M "
midpoint)/SD]. The effect sizes were then corrected for small
sample bias with the formula 1 " [3/(4N " 5)] to create a g
(Borenstein et al., 2009). The within-study weighting term for
these effect sizes was (1/n) $ {(d * d)/[2n(n " 1)]} (B. Becker,
personal communication, June 19, 2008), and the random-effects
models included the between-studies variance in the study weight.
Mean and distribution of effect sizes. Within each paradigm, the presentation first considers the mean weighted effect size
(with within-subjects effect sizes combined prior to averaging),
calculated by a random-effects model because the studies effect
sizes were not assumed to be consistent with a single underlying
mean value. We tested for outliers, as defined by more than 1.5
times the interquartile range beyond the upper quartile (i.e., the
upper inner fence, Tukey, 1977). We used Cohens (1988) benchmarks for d and r to describe the magnitude of the effect sizes g
and ICC, under which a g of .20 or an ICC of .10 is considered
small, a g of .50 or an ICC of .30 is considered medium, and a g
of .80 or an ICC of .50 is considered large. Along with the overall
mean, we present several distributional statistics recommended by
Borenstein et al. (2009): (a) T (or tau, the estimated standard
deviation of the true effect sizes); (b) 95% confidence interval (CI;
a measure of the accuracy of the mean; 95% of mean effect sizes
would fall inside this interval); (c) 90% prediction interval (PI; a
measure of the dispersion of effect sizes; 90% of true effects in
new studies with a sample selected at random would fall inside this
interval); (d) Q (a measure of uncertainty, or whether heterogeneity is genuine); and (e) I2 (a measure of the magnitude of heterogeneity, defined as the proportion of the observed dispersion that
is real rather than spurious on a 1 to 100% scale). An I2 near zero
indicates that almost all of the observed variance in the effects is
spurious and that there is no variance to explain, whereas a large
I2 indicates that investigation of the reasons for this variance is
warranted.
Publication bias. Analyses of the distribution of effect sizes
checked for potential biases in publication or our retrieval of
studies (see Borenstein et al., 2009). We first examined the funnel
plot of the effect sizes plotted by the standard error and assessed
whether Eggers test of the plots asymmetry was significant. We
next implemented the trim-and-fill procedure, which estimates the
number of studies that should be removed to create a more symmetric funnel plot. This procedure assesses the impact of removing
these studies on the mean effect size, then fills these studies back
in and imputes a mirror image for each such study to correct the
Results
Think ManagerThink Male Paradigm
Mean and distribution of effect sizes. Table 1 lists the 40
studies with their characteristics and 51 effect sizes. A more
masculine stereotype is indicated by (a) a greater menleaders
similarity, as indexed by a larger menleaders ICC; and (b) a lesser
womenleaders similarity, as indexed by a smaller womenleaders
ICC. The weighted mean effect for the 51 menleaders ICCs was
.62 (T ! 0.26; 95% CI [.57, .66]; 90% PI [.27, .82]). There was a
large amount of variability within the effect sizes, Q(50) ! 321.65,
p & .001; I2 ! 84.46. The weighted mean effect for the 49
womenleaders ICCs was .25 (T ! 0.22; 95% CI [.19, .32]; 90%
PI [".12, .56]). There was also a large amount of variability within
these effect sizes, Q(48) ! 241.77, p & .001; I2 ! 80.15. Thus,
consistent with an overall think managerthink male effect, the
menleaders similarity was large and the womenleaders similarity was small. Although the variability in each of these two types
631
AgencyCommunion Paradigm
Mean and distribution of effect sizes. Table 2 lists the 22
studies with their characteristics and 48 effect sizes. Larger gs
indicate a more masculine stereotype, as defined by the agency
minus communion difference. One sample (Powell & Kido, 1994;
ratings of good manager) was removed from further analyses as
an outlier (g ! "1.18). The weighted mean effect for the 39
remaining samples (merging the data within each of the three
studies that used within-subjects designs) was g ! 1.55 (T ! 0.55;
95% CI [1.36, 1.75]; 90% PI [0.61, 2.49]). Thus, the overall effect
was strongly in the masculine direction, with participants rating
leader groups (e.g., managers) as higher in agentic than communal
traits, with the lower bounds of the confidence and prediction
intervals remaining above zero. Although there was a large amount
of variability in the effect sizes, Q(38) ! 615.79, p & .001, I2 was
93.83, showing that a high proportion of the variability reflected
real differences, not random error.6
Publication bias. The funnel plot of the effect sizes plotted by
the standard error was asymmetric by Eggers test of asymmetry, with
smaller studies clustering to the right (masculine direction) of the
mean effect size. The trim-and-fill procedure suggested that 14 studies
with large effect sizes should be trimmed to make the plot more
symmetric, decreasing the mean effect size from 1.55 to 1.15. A
cumulative meta-analysis from large to small studies indicated
very little change in the overall effect when the smallest studies
4
We also recomputed the analyses using the number of participants as
the weight with generally similar results. The overall effects and associated
statistics were nearly identical, although the Q and I2 were larger for both
the womenleaders and menleaders similarities. Subgroup analyses and
meta-regressions produced findings similar to those obtained with item n
used to compute the weights.
5
Schein (2001; Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson, 1989) maintained that the
think managerthink male effect has decreased over time only for female
participants. However, although the womenleaders similarity was weaker
for female than male participants and increased over time, there was no
evidence of greater increase for female than male participants.
6
The weighted mean effect including the outlier was 1.49 (T ! 0.64;
95% CI [1.27, 1.71]; 90% PI [0.40, 2.58]), Q(39) ! 835.88, p & .001; I2 !
95.33. We also computed the same moderator analyses including the
outlier. The effects were similar to those reported here, although the leader
domain model was only marginal and the models for percentage of male
participants, percentage of male authors, and research group were nonsignificant.
632
Table 4
Subgroup Analyses for the Think ManagerThink Male Paradigm
Womenleaders similarity
Variable and class
QB
Participant sex
Male
Female
Leader status
Moderate
High
Participant nationality
Western
Eastern
30.38
&.001
0.82
2.88
Menleaders similarity
ICC
47
47
.11
.37
0.20
0.24
46
3
.26
.13
0.23
0.00
42
6
.27
.09
0.22
0.18
.37
QB
1.43
.23
8.72
.09
0.95
ICC
48
49
.63
.58
0.26
0.27
48
3
.60
.82
0.22
0.48
44
6
.60
.68
0.24
0.38
.003
.33
Note. QB ! between-classes effect with degrees of freedom equal to the number of moderator levels minus one; p ! probability; k ! number of samples;
ICC ! mean weighted effect size represented by the intraclass correlation coefficient; T ! tau, estimated standard deviation of the true effect sizes.
were included. Finally, a mixed-effects subgroup analysis comparing published and unpublished studies (albeit limited by the small
number of unpublished studies) indicated that the mean effect was
marginally larger for published studies (g ! 1.59, T ! 0.56, k !
37) than unpublished studies (g ! 0.86, T ! 0.00, k ! 2), QB !
2.91, p ! .09. Thus, the impact of publication bias was not trivial;
nevertheless, the finding that leader stereotypes were more agentic
than communal remains valid.
Analyses for each moderator. Table 7 presents the subgroup
analyses, and Table 8 presents the simple meta-regression models
(left columns). Moderation by participant nationality was not
tested because there were only two non-Western samples. Among
the a priori moderators, publication year (ranging from 1979 to
2007) was significant, with earlier years associated with larger
agency communion differences. Greater percentages of male participants were associated with larger differences, although dividing
the sample by participant sex (leaving only 25 of 47 reports) did
not yield a significant model. Leader domains that were managerial or political were associated with larger differences than the
educational domain, but leader status did not significantly moderate the effect. Percentage of female managers also did not significantly moderate the difference. Among the exploratory moderators, the originators (i.e., Powell or Butterfield) research group
(vs. others) was associated with larger differences, as was the
originators stereotype measure (vs. others).
Multiple meta-regression analysis. Table 8 (right columns)
shows a model that regressed the agency communion differences
onto the variables that were significant predictors in the subgroup
or simple meta-regression models. In this model, the agency
communion difference was larger for managerial and political (vs.
educational) domains and with the originators stereotype measure
and marginally larger in earlier years.
MasculinityFemininity Paradigm
Table 5
Simple Meta-Regressions for the Think ManagerThink
Male Paradigm
Predictor
Year of publication
Womenleaders similarity
Menleaders similarity
% Male participants
Womenleaders similarity
Menleaders similarity
% Female managers
Womenleaders similarity
Menleaders similarity
Participant age
Womenleaders similarity
Menleaders similarity
% Male authors
Womenleaders similarity
Menleaders similarity
'
49
51
0.01
0.00
0.22
0.04
.09
.77
49
51
"0.00
0.00
"0.22
0.06
.09
.66
48
50
0.00
"0.00
0.18
"0.16
.18
.27
49
51
0.01
"0.00
0.28
"0.04
.03
.75
49
51
"0.00
0.00
"0.29
0.08
.02
.56
633
Table 6
Multiple Meta-Regressions for the Think ManagerThink Male Paradigm
Womenleaders similarity
Menleaders similarity
'
'
Year of publication
% Male participants
Leader status
Participant nationality
Participant age
% Male authors
0.01
"0.00
"0.11
"0.11
0.01
"0.00
0.47
"0.27
"0.10
"0.13
0.47
"0.13
&.001
.03
.37
.27
.001
.31
"0.00
0.00
0.49
0.17
0.00
"0.00
"0.05
0.07
0.43
0.19
0.02
"0.02
.75
.62
.002
.18
.90
.91
Note. Models are random-effects weighted linear regressions calculated with weights equal to the reciprocal of
the variance for each effect size plus a random-effects component. b ! unstandardized regression coefficient;
' ! standardized regression coefficient; p ! probability. k ! 48 for womenleaders similarity and k ! 50 for
menleaders similarity. Codes were as follows: leader status: 1 ! high, 0 ! moderate; participant nationality:
1 ! Eastern, 0 ! Western.
QB
Participant sex
Male
Female
Leader domain
Educational
Political
Managerial
Leader status
Moderate
High
Research group
Originator
Other
Stereotype measure
Originators
Other
0.00
.99
7.69
0.43
10.13
7.48
25
25
1.20
1.20
0.33
0.52
6
15
26
0.75b
1.48a
1.51a
0.33
0.74
0.54
39
8
1.43
1.27
0.57
0.60
18
29
1.68
1.17
0.64
0.37
37
10
1.55
0.95
0.64
0.48
.02
.51
.001
.006
634
Table 8
Meta-Regressions for the AgencyCommunion Paradigm
Simple meta-regressions
Multiple meta-regression
Predictor
'
'
Year of publication
% Male participants
Leader domain
% Female managers
Research group
Stereotype measure
47
47
47
47
47
47
"0.04
0.01
"0.38
0.27
.004
.05
"0.02
0.01
0.91
"0.26
0.11
0.43
.08
.41
.004
"0.01
"0.09
.47
"0.01
0.54
"0.01
0.32
.97
.03
Note. Models are random-effects weighted linear regressions calculated with weights equal to the reciprocal of
the variance for each effect size plus a random-effects component. Blank cells indicate data that are not
applicable to that analysis. k ! number of samples; b ! unstandardized regression coefficient; ' ! standardized
regression coefficient; p ! probability. Codings were as follows: leader domain: 1 ! managerial and political
leaders, 0 ! educational leaders; research group: 1 ! originator, 0 ! other; stereotype measure: 1 ! originators,
0 ! other.
Discussion
All three paradigms showed that stereotypes of leaders are
decidedly masculine. Specifically, people viewed leaders as quite
similar to men but not very similar to women, as more agentic than
communal, and as more masculine than feminine. These findings
are minimally invalidated by publication bias. Only the agency
communion findings appeared somewhat susceptible to exaggeration of the masculinity of the leader stereotype, but this weak bias
Table 9
Subgroup Analyses for the MasculinityFemininity Paradigm
Variable and class
QB
Participant sex
Male
Female
Leader domain
Education
Business
Arts
Political
Judicial
Othera
Leader status
Moderate
High
2.53
.11
18.81
8.36
41
41
0.92
0.67
0.73
0.70
16
48
8
8
8
13
0.49a
0.84a
1.07a,b
1.08a,b
1.80b,c
1.93c
1.21
1.02
0.77
0.37
1.87
0.85
89
12
0.92
1.91
0.96
1.97
.002
.004
A Priori Moderators
Year of publication. Evidence of the increasing androgyny
of the leader stereotype over publication years emerged in all three
paradigms, including in the multiple regression equations that
controlled for other moderator variables (albeit as a marginal effect
in the agency communion multiple meta-regression). In the think
managerthink male paradigm, the increasing similarity of leaders
and women that emerged in our analyses could be due to change
in women or leader stereotypes or both. Because participants rated
only leaders (and not men or women) in the agency communion
and the masculinityfemininity paradigms, the effects of moderators on these effect sizes could be due only to differing beliefs
about leaders. Given that all three paradigms showed increasing
androgyny of leadership over time and that previous research
indicates little change in stereotypes of women toward greater
masculinity (see Lueptow et al., 2001), the most appropriate conclusion appears to be that the popular conception of leadership has
changed over time. In addition, the think managerthink male
paradigm indicated that change over time took the form of increasing similarity between leaders and women without change in the
similarity between leaders and men. Thus, our conclusion is that
leadership now, more than in the past, appears to incorporate more
feminine relational qualities, such as sensitivity, warmth, and
understanding, thus adding them to the masculine dominance and
strength qualities traditionally associated with leadership.
635
Table 10
Meta-Regressions for the MasculinityFemininity Paradigm
Simple meta-regressions
Multiple meta-regression
Predictor
'
'
Year of publication
% Male participants
Leader domain
Leader status
% Female managers
% Male authors
101
101
101
101
101
101
"0.06
0.08
"0.42
0.22
&.001
.01
"0.02
"0.01
"0.16
"0.19
.06
.02
"0.05
"0.01
1.17
1.20
0.00
"0.00
"0.39
"0.02
0.36
0.30
0.00
"0.02
&.001
.85
&.001
&.001
.98
.76
Note. Models are random-effects weighted linear regressions calculated with weights equal to the reciprocal of
the variance for each effect size plus a random-effects component. Blank cells indicate data that were not
applicable to that analysis. k ! number of samples; b ! unstandardized regression coefficient; ' ! standardized
regression coefficient; p ! probability. Codings were as follows: leader domain: 1 ! judicial and other, 0 !
education, business, arts, and political; leader status: 1 ! high, 0 ! moderate.
Consistent with existing research (Beaman et al., 2009; Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004), this change may reflect peoples increasing
exposure to women among organizational managers and political
leaders. Yet this change may also reflect the increasing failure of
traditionally masculine, command-and-control styles of leadership
to meet the complex challenges involved in contemporary management and political leadership (Kanter, 1997; Lipman-Blumen,
2000). If so, men leaders may be under pressure to enlarge their
behavioral repertoire to include a greater measure of culturally
feminine relational skills (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Men appear to be
succeeding, given that they are not perceived as any less similar to
leaders than they were in the past, according to our analysis that
separated the role incongruity of men and leaders from that of
women and leaders in the think managerthink male paradigm.
These findings of increased femininity of leadership without decreased masculinity suggest that women leaders would be well
advised to retain elements of a masculine leadership style to avoid
a mismatch with leader roles, even if they now have greater
flexibility to incorporate elements of a feminine leadership style.
Participant sex.
An additional prediction was that men
would have a more masculine construal of leadership than women.
Only the think managerthink male paradigm allowed all of the
findings to be separated or identified by participant sex, and the
resulting analyses yielded smaller womenleaders correlations for
male than female participants. Although this finding was not
replicated in the other paradigms, a related analysis that did not
rely on separating female and male participant samples showed
that a greater proportion of male participants yielded marginally
smaller womenleaders correlations in the think managerthink
male paradigm as well as significantly larger masculine leader
stereotypes in both the agency communion and the masculinity
femininity paradigms. In sum, evidence that men construe leadership as more masculine than women is present in all three paradigms and strongest for mens stereotyping of leaders as not very
similar to women.
This finding is consistent with meta-analytic research showing
that men, but not women, devalued womens leadership in experimental studies that held constant all leader characteristics other
than their sex (see Eagly et al., 1992). Also, mens failure to accord
women many of the qualities of leaders is consistent with their
greater social dominance (e.g., Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006)
and sexism (e.g., Glick & Fiske, 1996). The implications of mens
reservations about womens leadership abilities are important.
Because men are the more typical holders of decision-making
power in organizations, their beliefs that women lack the qualities
of leaders can limit womens access to positions of authority and
slow their progress into leadership positions.
Leader status. Consistent with the rarity of women in top
positions, higher status leadership positions were expected to have
a more masculine stereotype. Both the think managerthink male
and the masculinityfemininity paradigms found greater masculinity of high-status leadership positions (e.g., upper-level managers) than moderate-status positions (e.g., middle-level managers or
managers in general). The think managerthink male studies suggested that this effect appears mainly because higher status leaders
are stereotypically more similar to men rather than less similar to
women. Although these effects remained significant in the multiple meta-regressions, they should be interpreted cautiously because the studies offered relatively few instances of especially
high-status leader roles. In addition, the effects may be constrained
to certain types of high-status roles, as the agency communion
paradigm, which contained a greater number of political highstatus leadership positions than the other two paradigms, did not
yield this moderation.
According to role congruity theory, women entering higher
status positions should encounter more prejudice because of the
greater stereotypical mismatch between women and leadership.
Our think managerthink male findings suggest instead that men
gain greater congruity as status increases, thereby contributing to
their increasing numerical dominance at higher levels. Yet women
who do manage to be successful in very high-status roles may be
perceived as highly competent, because people assume a double
standard whereby such women had to overcome especially difficult challenges (Rosette & Tost, 2010).
Other a priori variables. Our ability to test the remaining a
priori moderatorsleader domain, nationality of participants, and
percentage of female managerswas compromised by the limitations of the available studies. Because the three paradigms used
different types of leader groups, the effects of leader domain were
not comparable across the paradigms, and the think managerthink
male paradigm did not present sufficient variability in domain to
allow a test of this variable. In the agency communion and
636
Exploratory Moderators
The exploratory variables yielded a few findings of interest. In
the think managerthink male paradigm, older participants, who
were a mix of managerial and nonmanagerial employees, showed
a stronger womenleaders similarity than younger participants,
who were business or other undergraduate students. Although
these results support the conclusion that students and others with
little workplace experience hold more masculine stereotypes of
leaders, the nonreplication in the agency communion paradigm
renders these findings ambiguous.
The originators of the agency communion paradigm produced
more masculine stereotypes, although this effect was no longer
significant in the multiple regression and not replicated in the other
paradigms. The originators measure may have produced greater
masculinity in the agency communion paradigm, because this
measure, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, had better psychometric
properties than many of the other measures, which were often
more casually constructed without a factor or item analyses. Yet
the rarity of reporting measures internal consistencies in the
primary studies precluded a statistical test of the idea that the Bem
Sex Role Inventory provided more coherent measures of agency
and communion. The percentage of male authors had inconsistent
effects across the paradigms and was not a significant predictor the
multiple meta-regressions. In general, the lack of consistent moderation of these paradigms by variables related to the authors of the
primary studies and to stereotype measures used in the studies
indicates that the effects revealed in this meta-analysis are not
limited to certain research groups or dependent measures.
signs might foster self-presentational pressures to appear tolerant of female leaders by downplaying the masculinity of leader
roles. Yet such pressures would have been mitigated in the
masculinityfemininity studies by the presentation of a wide
range of occupations within which only relatively few pertained
to leadership. Nevertheless, future research should include
more subtle measures that assess implicit associations between
gender and leadership. In one study that included implicit
measures, Rudman and Kilanski (2000) found that participants,
especially men, more quickly paired male names with authority
roles and female names with subordinate roles and were quicker
to respond to positive words after seeing a male than a female
authority figure (see also Beaman et al., 2009; Dasgupta &
Asgari, 2004). Although these findings are consistent with the
masculine construal of leadership found in our meta-analysis,
additional research incorporating implicit measures would be
informative.
The current meta-analysis also highlights other areas for
future research that are not well addressed by the current
primary studies. For example, more studies in Eastern nations
would help to address questions about the masculinity of leadership roles across cultures. Also, although research has examined role incongruity based on race (Sy et al., 2010), it has not
addressed intersectionality, whereby the role incongruity of
women in relation to leadership may depend on other group
memberships (e.g., race, ethnicity, sexual orientation) as well as
their gender (Cole, 2009). In addition, expanding the domain of
research beyond managerial leadership positions would be useful in understanding the contextual nature of stereotypes of
leadership. More primary research on the impact of leader
status is also needed, and greater variation of research designs
and measures would be appropriate. Finally, additional metaanalyses should assess future changes and contextual variation
in the cultural construal of leadership.
637
638
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analyses.
Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., Waldman, D., DiMare, L., & Hayden, M. V.
(2004). Mens and womens perceptions of the gender typing of management subroles. Sex Roles, 50, 191199. doi:10.1023/B:
SERS.0000015551.78544.35
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces
in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beaman, L., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P.
(2009). Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias? Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 124, 14971540. doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1497
*Beggs, J. M., & Doolittle, D. C. (1993). Perceptions now and then of
occupational sex typing: A replication of Shinars (1975) study. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 14351453. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.1993.tb01042.x
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155162. doi:10.1037/
h0036215
Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). Changing rhythms
of American family life. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
*Booysen, L., & Nkomo, S. (2006). Think managerthink (fe)male: A
South African perspective. International Journal of the Interdisciplinary
Social Sciences, 1, 2334.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009).
Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley. doi:10.1002/
9780470743386
*Boyce, L. A., & Herd, A. M. (2003). The relationship between gender role
stereotypes and requisite military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles,
49, 365378. doi:10.1023/A:1025164221364
*Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship
between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics
revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662 669. doi:10.2307/
256439
Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S.,
& Vogel, S. R. (1970). Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judgments of
mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 17.
doi:10.1037/h0028797
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should
be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 665 692. doi:10.1037/
1076-8971.5.3.665
*Butterfield, D. A., & Powell, G. N. (1981). Convergent validity in
students perceptions of Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, and the ideal
president. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 5156.
Buttner, E. H., & Rosen, B. (1988). Bank loan officers perceptions of the
characteristics of men, women, and successful entrepreneurs. Journal of
Business Venturing, 3, 249 258. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(88)90018-3
*Byler, V. L. J. (2000). Perceptions of effective athletic administrators and
gender schemas. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(12), 4688.
*Cann, A., & Siegfried, W. D. (1987). Sex stereotypes and the leadership
role. Sex Roles, 17, 401 408. doi:10.1007/BF00288143
Catalyst. (2010). Quick takes: Women in U.S. management. Retrieved from
http://www.catalyst.org/publication/206/women-in-us-management
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of
occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413 423. doi:10.1177/
0146167299025004002
Center for American Women and Politics. (2010). Fact sheet: History of
women governors. Retrieved from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/
fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/govhistory.pdf
Center for American Women and Politics. (2011). Fact sheet: Women in
639
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269 298.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent womens ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of
Social Issues, 57, 657 674. doi:1.1111/0022-4537.00234
*Heilman, M. E., Block, C. K., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has
anything changed? Current characteristics of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935942. doi:10.1037/00219010.74.6.935
Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and
busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1, 393398. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00072.x
Heilman, M. E., & Parks-Stamm, E. J. (2007). Gender stereotypes in the
workplace: Obstacles to womens career progress. In S. J. Correll (Ed.),
Social psychology of gender: Advances in group processes (Vol. 24, pp.
4777). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Hogue, M., & Lord, R. G. (2007). A multilevel, complexity theory approach to understanding gender bias in leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 370 390. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.006
Howell, S. E., & Day, C. L. (2000). Complexities of the gender gap.
Journal of Politics, 62, 848 874. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00036
Hoyt, C., & Blascovich, J. (2007). Leadership efficacy and women leaders
responses to stereotype activation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 595 616. doi:10.1177/1368430207084718
Hoyt, C. L., Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., & Skinnell, K. H. (2010). The
impact of blatant stereotype activation and group sex-composition on
female leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 716 732. doi:10.1016/
j.leaqua.2010.07.003
*Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of organizations. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 503525. doi:10.1177/
106591299304600304
*Inderlied, S. D., & Powell, G. (1979). Sex-role identity and leadership
style: Different labels for the same concept? Sex Roles, 5, 613 625.
doi:10.1007/BF00287664
International Labour Organization. (1985). Yearbook of labour statistics.
Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2010). Women in national parliaments. Retrieved from http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290 314. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290
Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The
strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership
prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 39 60. doi:10.1016/
j.obhdp.2007.12.002
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 755768. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kanter, R. M. (1997). Rosabeth Moss Kanter on the frontiers of management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
*Karau, S. J. (2005). [Gender role stereotypes and the requisite characteristics of middle managers, CEOs, and entrepreneurs]. Unpublished raw
data.
*Karau, S. J., & Elsaid, A. M. (2005). [Cultural influences on perceptions
of female managers: A comparison of Egypt and the United States].
Unpublished raw data.
*Karau, S. J., & Hansen, E. (2005). [Cultural influences on perceptions of
female managers: A comparison of Sweden and the United States].
Unpublished raw data.
Kelley, L. R., & Blashfield, R. K. (2009). An example of psychological
sciences failure to self-correct. Review of General Psychology, 13,
122129. doi:10.1037/a0015287
640
641
642
& G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 5th ed., pp.
629 667). New York, NY: Wiley.
Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T.
(1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence
processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323345. doi:10.1037/00332909.115.3.323
*Yim, P. C.-Y., & Bond, M. H. (2002). Gender stereotyping of managers
and the self-concept of business students across their undergraduate